Edit milestone goal/weeks/difficulty/name — DIRECT. new_name renames (never delete+recreate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Preferred | |
| goal | No | ||
| name | No | Current name (if no id) | |
| weeks | No | ||
| new_name | No | Rename | |
| difficulty | No | "" clears | |
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / difficulty / descriptionPrevious value: -"How hard this milestone is — a LABEL only, never part of the done count (optional; \"\" clears it)"New value: +"\"\" clears"Input schema / properties / goal / descriptionRemoved value: -"New goal text (optional)"Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Milestone id from get_project_context (preferred — unambiguous)"New value: +"Preferred"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact CURRENT milestone name (selects it, if no id; must be unique)"New value: +"Current name (if no id)"Input schema / properties / new_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"New milestone name — rename in place (optional; must not collide with another milestone)"New value: +"Rename"Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."Input schema / properties / weeks / descriptionRemoved value: -"New week estimate (optional)"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already marks destructiveHint false. The description adds that new_name renames without deletion and characterizes the operation as DIRECT, reinforcing non-destructiveness. It does not disclose other behaviors like needing an id or name to locate the milestone, which is partly in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, and every phrase adds meaning ('DIRECT', 'never delete+recreate'). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters with no required fields, and the description covers the main edit fields and rename behavior. However, it lacks guidance on identifying the target (id vs name), project_id context, or effects of omitted fields, making the description incomplete for a moderately complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 57%: id, name, new_name, difficulty have descriptions. The description adds that new_name renames (not delete+recreate) and reinforces that name is editable, but does not explain the id-vs-name resolution or how to clear difficulty (only in schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Edit') with the resource ('milestone') and lists the modifiable fields (goal, weeks, difficulty, name). It adds behavioral context ('DIRECT', 'never delete+recreate') that distinguishes it from delete-and-recreate approaches, making the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the direct update path for milestones, explicitly noting that new_name renames rather than delete+recreate. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., propose_milestone) or provide explicit when-not conditions beyond the no-delete behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.
With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.
The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.